So,... you think we know a lot about a guy who did great in a third-tier level (Czech league 50s) and well in second tier play (international 1940s-1950s), but we don't know enough about a guy who did very well in the top tier level of his time, against the best of his era?

I don't get how one person could hold both judgements, about Zabrodsky and Paton, unless one appeals to the fact that Zabrodsky is on your squad versus Paton being on a divisional rival's. Why the scepticism on the one hand and faith on the other? especially given the two radically different levels of competition?

Well, first of all, with the information posted about how Canada selected it's representative teams for the World Championships, I'm not nearly as high on Zabrodsky as I was when we picked him. Even when we picked him, he was kind of mystery, which is why he's always been a sppare. Futhermore, when we making our pitch for Zabodsky as a 2nd liner, the biggest point of comparison was Sven Tumba, somebody with who there is a comparable level of competition. I'm not sure what you think we were claiming about him, but it certainly wasn't aywhere near the level of "best goalie".

Second, there's a lot more information available on Zabrodsy than there is on Paton and Nicholson. We know Zabrodsky's style of play, we know most of his scoring accomplishments, and we know how good he was compared to the players he played against. The only mystery with him is how good his competition was. With Billy Nicholson, we have some contemporary quotes, even though only a few are actually meaningful, and a 2nd team all-star selection in 1908. That's not very much, but at least it's something. With Tom Paton, there has yet to be anything found to show how good he was. I was actually glad when 70s picked him - I thought he'd finally get the profile he deserved, but that didn't happen. Paton has now been "owned" by multiple GMs who are known for their ability to dig up information, and there is still nothing substantial to support his greatness.